webquik_get_limits

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it supplies almost none: no mention of auth/session requirements, no indication of whether values are real-time or cached, and no clarification of what "depo" limits represent. The presence of an output schema covers return shape but not these traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness leaves useful context out rather than being padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple zero-parameter read with an output schema documenting the return values, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no annotations and no auth or freshness context, an agent lacks information needed to invoke it confidently in a trading session.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a clear verb ("Return") and names the specific resource ("cash and depo limits"), which distinguishes it from sibling reads like webquik_get_portfolio or webquik_get_orders. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, and "depo" is unexplained jargon.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus webquik_get_portfolio or other account-state reads, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a session/login is required) are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.